Chimp attack victim tries again to sue state

Michael P. Mayko

Updated 11:44 pm, Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Charla Nash, right, talks with attorney Bill Monaco before a hearing at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, Conn., Friday, Aug. 10, 2012. Nash who was mauled in a 2009 chimpanzee attack is trying again to sue Connecticut for $150 million.
Photo: AP Photo/Jessica Hill

Charla Nash, who was disfigured and nearly killed by a 2009 chimpanzee attack in Stamford, is seeking a second chance to prove her case against the state.

Lawyers for Nash, who underwent a facial transplant but is still blind and unable to use her hands, appealed last month's decision, which denied her the chance to collect damages from the state. The ruling by J. Paul Vance Jr., the state's claims commissioner, said that state law at the time permitted private ownership of chimps.

Nash was attacked Feb. 16, 2009, by a chimp owned by her friend, Sandra Herold. Police killed the chimp, named Travis, during the attack and Herold has since died. Her estate paid a $4 million settlement to Nash.

Now, Nash is seeking an additional $150 million from the state, claiming the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (known at the time of the attack as the Department of Environmental Protection) had been warned by its own biologist that the 14-year-old, 200-pound chimp Herold had raised since it was a baby was "an accident waiting to happen."

Ann and Charles Willinger, the married lawyers who filed the appeal with Vance on Wednesday, is hopeful that the state Legislature's Judiciary Committee will consider their claims by conducting a full hearing when it convenes early next year.

"We anticipate they will correctly apply the law, overrule the claims commissioner and permit us to pursue our case in court," Charles Willinger said Thursday.

In their appeal, the Willingers claim Vance's decision is flawed on several issues, including failing "to recognize the unique position of the DEEP and horrendous consequences that can and did befall a state resident when the DEEP, despite its manifest responsibilities, ignored its obligations ..."

Chimpanzee ownership was banned by the state Legislature as a result of the attack.

The Willingers claim Vance erred by not applying the same standard of responsibility to the state as a private person would have. They further point out Vance failed to address the allegation of DEEP's negligence for not taking action on warnings from their own employees and from other state residents.

"The DEEP biologist tasked with oversight of exotic animals in Connecticut ... included an outline of the dire consequences that could befall individuals coming into contact with the animal," Ann Willinger said. "No action was taken by the DEEP."

Nash's lawyer further charges that Herold did not have the required permit for the chimpanzee and, as a result, it should have been seized by the state.

They point to a state Supreme Court case in which a dog warden failed to quarantine a biting dog for 14 days as required, and instead allowed the dog returned to the owner, which resulted in another person being bitten.

"The court found there was a duty to protect the public," said Charles Willinger. "That same duty exists here."